When did Peter become Pope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dsully
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SteveVH said:
You are correct, but I think the Catholic position on your second point would be that the power to bind and loose is the power to legislate. All of the Apostles were given the authority to forgive sins:

*"19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”* (John 20:19-23)

Peter’s status as leader of the early Church, however, is evident from the words Jesus spoke only to him and we see his role as leader clearly played out in the Book of Acts.
Click to expand...
The question between us is what does that leadership role mean.
Jon
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
Never, he was an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ who established with Paul a Bishop in Rome and in other places.
Click to expand...
Well the Fathers seem to disagree with you :

St.Irenaeus

He supplies us with a cogent argument. In two passages (Against Heresies I.27.1 and III.4.3) he speaks of Hyginus as ninth Bishop of Rome, thus employing an enumeration which involves the inclusion of Peter as first bishop

St. Cyprian

In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian expressly terms the Roman See the Chair of St. Peter, saying that Cornelius has succeeded to “the place of Fabian which is the place of Peter” (Epistle 51:8; cf. 75:3)

Eusabius

Eusebius wrote in “The Chronicle” (Ad An Dom 42), that Peter, after establishing the Church in Antioch, went to Rome where he remained as Bishop of Rome for 25 years.

Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Saint Damasus I

, “The Decree of Damasus” 3, 382 A.D., J910u
“The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.”

St. Cyprian of Carhage

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant.”

Eusebius of Caesarea

Optatus

“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter;** the chair in which Peter sat**, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]
 
concretecamper said:
My take is after the accession. Christ used the word “will” build my church…future tense. Since Pentecost is the birthday of the church, Pentecost would be a good choice.

Also, the reason Christ asked Peter 3 times…if you read it in the greek, Christ used the word agape the first 2 times. Peter’s response was lacking so Christ met Peter where Peter was at and used the word philos the third time. This is a great gospel story that loses much because of the english word “love” means so many things.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
Click to expand...
Christ and Peter would have been speaking Aramaic, not Greek. John’s reasons for using the different vocabulary when he wrote the Gospel account in Greek have been lost to history.
 
DaveBj said:
Christ and Peter would have been speaking Aramaic, not Greek. John’s reasons for using the different vocabulary when he wrote the Gospel account in Greek have been lost to history.
Click to expand...
You are correct…Christ spoke in Arimaic. I don’t think I said he spoke Greek…or any language. The point is that much is lost in translation.
 
JonNC said:
The question between us is what does that leadership role mean.
Jon
Click to expand...
Welcome back Jon…are you posting from your hospital bed?

Anyway…what do you think or what is your view of what that leadership role should be?
 
dsully said:
Did Peter become Pope when Christ said “on this rock I will build my Church?”

Or was there a later moment in time when Peter became the Pope?
Click to expand...
Scripture always list Peter first among the apostles. Jesus begins to build His Church upon Peter while a disciple. Peter becomes an Apostle of the Lord when he and the other apostle’s are “sent” by the Lord. Peter established three known episcopates the first was in Antioch, Alexandria and finally His own apostolate in Rome while Paul was the great evangelist in Rome.

The apostles were first hand eyewitnesses to the revelations of God to our humanity, these first hand revelations were handed down to their apostolic successors. All the unbroken apostolic successors of Peter from Rome are called Popes, Peter being the first in the unbroken line of Popes, because all bishops of Rome are apostolic successors to Peter.

Peter does not act in the person of authority (excercising the Keys of binding and losing on earth) in the Kingdom of God, until Jesus resurrects from the dead and ascends into heaven. Although while Jesus the bridegroom walked among His disciples, it is Peter that generally speaks on behalf of all the other disciples.

Peter becomes Pope, when he begins to obey and execute what Jesus commands of Peter before Jesus ascends into heaven, to feed His sheep, feed His lambs and tend His flock on earth, until Jesus returns.

One can argue that Jesus gave all the apostles the power from divine authority to bind and loose and forgive sins, All of these apostles are to excercise these powers in their local episcopates (Church’s), but Jesus gave to Peter alone the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose “on earth”, as Jesus will do in heaven what ever Peter binds and looses on earth. Their is a greater distinct earthly authority given to Peter than all the other apostles. Yet these powers never the less are the same in binding and loosing, scripture dictates to Peter alone who is to bind and loose upon the earth.

Peter is given the keys of the kingdom of heaven to bind and loose on earth while a disciple of Christ, and after Jesus consecrates His apostles to Himself (see John 17 all) to prepare them for their offices of ministry. The apostles are not sent to act until Christ resurrects and ascends into heaven, and are given the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Peter’s first act as Pope was to replace the apostolic office of Judas Iscariot. Peter is the first to address the whole world (feast at Jersusalem) without fear to proclaim Christ crucified after Pentecost recorded in the book of Acts.

Peace be with you
 
pablope said:
Welcome back Jon…are you posting from your hospital bed?

Anyway…what do you think or what is your view of what that leadership role should be?
Click to expand...
As a matter of fact, that’s precisely where I am posting from. lol

The Bishop of Rome holds a primacy of honor among the bishops. But he is the bishop of Rome, the western patriarch which in the historic Church was the limit to his jurisdiction, as per Nicea, canon 6

Jon
 
JonNC said:
The Bishop of Rome holds a primacy of honor among the bishops. But he is the bishop of Rome, the western patriarch which in the historic Church was the limit to his jurisdiction, as per Nicea, canon 6

Jon
Click to expand...
Welcome back Jon, praying for a fast recovery for you:)

I have to disagree with you Jon. The “historic Church”? The Bishop of Rome was already holding to the Church as pre-eminent for all the other church’s to follow long before there ever was any patriarch in Constantinople. Post Constantinople is never the Historic Apostolic Church. Nicea is post Constantinople. The Roman Catholic Church or the bishop of Rome predates Constantinople and it’s patriarch and Nicea by 400 years.
At the height of the Arian struggle, the Council of Sardica acknowledges the supreme ecclesiastical authority of Rome, and gives the Roman bishop the right to judge cases involving episcopal sees. The presiding bishop at this council is St. Athanasius himself, who had previously been restored to his see of Alexandria by the authority of Pope Julius I --an authority that is even recognized by the Arians, then in power at Constantinople. Thus, Sardica merely codified Rome’s Traditional primacy as a matter of imperial law.
Click to expand...
**
With the Arians defeated, the Council of Constantinople proclaims the Bishop of Constantinople (the imperial bishop) second in status to the Bishop of Rome --a decision which Rome refuses to endorse, calling it unTraditional. Rather, citing Canon 6 of Nicaea, Rome upholds the authority of Alexandria as the Traditional second see, and that of Antioch as the third see. It claims that this order of primacy was established by St. Peter himself. Thus, Constantinople is denied the status of a Christian patriarchate.
Click to expand...
With the Council’s decree rejected, Eastern Emperor Theodosius I tries to imitate the policy of Western Emperor Gratian by making St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Bishop of Constantinople, the Pontifex Maximus of the Eastern Empire. St. Gregory, however, refuses to accept the title, and soon after resigns the bishopric.

(see here) catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/timeline_history_of_catholic_orthodox_relations.php** ( I would welcome all to visit this site to gain a “brief” historic insight to the early Church that contradicts the Orthodox’s view of the Church post Constantinople)

The council of Sardica 342 a.d.

When the Roman Emperor Imperalized the Church in his domains, is when the patriarch’s of Constantinople usurped authority over apostolic sees like Antioch, Alexandria and tried but failed to usurp or gain equality of jurisdiction and authority with the bishops of Rome. It is not till post Constantinople we see Church Imperalism seeking councils to try and get equality or usurp the bishop’s of Rome authority over other Church’s. Prior to the Imperial Church age or post Constantinople the Bishop’s of Rome authority was never brought into question.

There is much, much more to digress amongst the councils which were ratified by the Popes and those canons and councils findings which the Popes rejected.

Peace be with you and a safe recovery to you:thumbsup:
 
JonNC said:
Yes.
1 ) Even perhaps when there was no understandable reason to do
so, he articulates the single greatest confession of faith in the history of the Church: “You are
the Christ, the son of the. Living God.”
  1. He receives for the Church the Power of the Keys, the power to bind and loose sin.
Jon
Click to expand...
This is what I call faith. You are just now recovering from double knee surgery and what are you doing?

Yeah, talking about the first Pope. Thanks be to God. 👍

Hope all is well with you, Jon.
 
dsully said:
Did Peter become Pope when Christ said “on this rock I will build my Church?”

Or was there a later moment in time when Peter became the Pope?
Click to expand...
People forget, the papacy is an OFFICE,not a person.

As the saying goes:

Jesus picked the best office for the man, not the best man for the office.
 
JonNC said:
Yes.
1 ) Even perhaps when there was no understandable reason to do
so, he articulates the single greatest confession of faith in the history of the Church: “You are
the Christ, the son of the. Living God.”
  1. He receives for the Church the Power of the Keys, the power to bind and loose sin.
Jon
Click to expand...
  1. John 21:15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.
😃
 
Peter became the ordained as Pope during Pentecost. It would be an oxymoron for there to be a Pope when Jesus is still living.
 
Peter was always a vitally important apostle; as well as one of the most fundamentally human and flawed among them, so I would argue that you could say Peter was always on his way to the job. I’d say that Peter actually gained all the responsibilities and privileges associated with being Mortal Head of the Church (whatever title you want to give the position) after the Resurrection and prior to the Ascension, during the “feed my sheep” episode brought up so often in this thread. He did not actually become either the symbolic or the actual Mortal Head of the Church, however, until Pentecost, because until Pentecost, there was not a Church to be Head of, only a loose, very small collection of still-faithful disciples centered around the Apostles and Mary, with no very clear authority. Just my view.
 
JonNC said:
As a matter of fact, that’s precisely where I am posting from. lol

The Bishop of Rome holds a primacy of honor among the bishops. But he is the bishop of Rome, the western patriarch which in the historic Church was the limit to his jurisdiction, as per Nicea, canon 6

Jon
Click to expand...
Canon 6
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
Click to expand...
I don’t see it limiting the jurisdiction of Rome nor do I see that it was its intent.
The Sixth Nicene Canon and the Papacy
 
Miriam1947 said:
This is what I call faith. You are just now recovering from double knee surgery and what are you doing?

Yeah, talking about the first Pope. Thanks be to God. 👍

Hope all is well with you, Jon.
Click to expand...
And now at 5:00’in the morning - the cycles of pain and pain meds being what they are - I am at it again. Some of my Lutheran brethren might encourage me to reevaluate my priorities. lol

Jon
 
TylerJordan said:
Peter became the ordained as Pope during Pentecost. It would be an oxymoron for there to be a Pope when Jesus is still living.
Click to expand...
I would think also the time came at Pentecost. Luke 2. 👍

Not so much as ordained as I believe he was before in John but here in Luke 2 he begins his ministry to the world as leader with his first public statement…“These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning!”😃

Nicea325 says:

As the saying goes:

Jesus picked the best office for the man, not the best man for the office."

👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top